Search This Blog

Delay in disposing injunction petition = interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction in which the respondents-defendants filed their counters.= the trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.3180 of 2014 in O.S.No.1502 of 2014 on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.1391 of 2016
Order:
Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner-plaintiff filed
an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1
and 2 and Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction
in which the respondents-defendants filed their counters.
It is submitted that the learned Court below without
passing any orders on the interlocutory application has
been adjourning the matter from time to time.
3. The only relief sought for in the civil revision
petition is to issue a direction to the Court below to
dispose of the interlocutory application at an early stage.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that no notice to the
opposite party is necessary. Copy of the docket
proceedings of the Court below shows that the matter is
being adjourned by the trial Court unnecessarily and
keeping the same pending without any disposal.
4. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of
I.A.No.3180 of 2014 in O.S.No.1502 of 2014 on merits
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of
at the stage of admission. The miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. No
costs.
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
22
nd April, 2016.
Ak
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.1391 of 2016
2
2
n
d
A
p
ril, 2
0
1
6. (Ak)

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …